Re: the benefits of immutability

["Perry E. Metzger" <address@hidden>]

Vadim Nasardinov <el-vadimo@comcast.net> writes:
> Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>  > Then we should abandon object oriented programming.
> 
> Perhaps, we should.  I fail to see though how this follows from the
> previous discussion though.

Frankly, I don't see how anything follows from your comments. I made a
point that it was annoying that String couldn't be subclassed, first
you claimed (bizarrely) that this was so that String could be
immutable (which of course the final StringBuffer type disproves), and
then you claimed, bizarrely, that wanting to subclass things is a bad
idea so I shouldn't claim this as a problem. I noted that Java depends
on subclassing and now you are weaseling again.

The fact remains, subclassing is the way Java does stuff, so it is not
unreasonable to want to use the facility on the built in types. If you
want to argue that object oriented programming is bad in general, find
someone else to discuss that with. In any case, I find your
"arguments" inconsistent and self contradictory at the very best.


Perry